Armed citizens stopping mass shootings - Who to believe?

[rushmc 18]

turtlespeed

******

Quote

65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.

Source: Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48. Back

Absolute nonsense. The US already has 4x the homicides of any other western industrial nation while having the most guns. To claim it would be 260x the rate if guns weren't around to "protect" is just pure BS.

Thats very fuzzy math there Pro fessor

Joken Joe math to be exact

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DaVinci 0]

kallend

***

Quote

65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.

Source: Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48. Back

Absolute nonsense. The US already has 4x the homicides of any other western industrial nation while having the most guns. To claim it would be 260x the rate if guns weren't around to "protect" is just pure BS.

I have provided the source, you have provided bleating.

The CDC just released a report stating:
“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence [...]. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

[turtlespeed 212]

DaVinci

******

Quote

65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.

Source: Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48. Back

Absolute nonsense. The US already has 4x the homicides of any other western industrial nation while having the most guns. To claim it would be 260x the rate if guns weren't around to "protect" is just pure BS.

I have provided the source, you have provided bleating.

The CDC just released a report stating:
“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence [...]. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

Yes. So you are talking about at least 800000 incidents if guns are banned, reaching up to 3.3 million per year.

Unless you can magically evaporate all those "legal" weapons in the hands of criminals.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

tkhayes

Quote

You'd really love to success with this WAG, but the numbers don't remotely support you.

My point is that we do not have the numbers and neither do you. To conclude that more guns have reduced the gun murder rate is just as erroneous as concluding that the reduction in the murder rate is tied to the decrease in the median household income rate over the same period.

Now you've tried to redefine the question again. I'm not part of the group that wants to argue more guns, less crime. I'm content to say that your claim of more guns = more crime has been proven demonstrably false over the past 20 years.

Quote

We do not have the numbers.

This is a funny retreat. You thought you had the numbers when you (repeatedly) made your "common sense" claim. But when it was dashed to bits, you're now trying to assert that the question is more complicated.